Epstein Secrets

lly, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(0, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, files this motion for review of the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018 denying a stay of trial cour

(the Honorable Donald Hafele) has just made two rulings which warrant extraordinary relief. The first ruling in an Order of March 8, 2018, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in I In compliance with this Court's Administrative Order No. 2014-1, the Petitioner has contemporaneousl

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

arately. (App. 19)6. The court denied Epstein's ore tenus motion for stay. and this motion for review of that denial follows. (App. 20). ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF HIS MANDAMUS PETITION BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT MUST REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE TRIAL DOCKET IN ORDER TO COMPL

arate trial should not be ordered unless such disposition is clearly necessary, and then only in the furtherance of justice." Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For example, "It is improper to sever a

ockenbach FBN Rachel J. Glasser Primary: Primary: Primary: Seconda Seconda Seconda Trial & Appellate Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 23 EFTA00793715 CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE & STYLE I certify that the type, size, and style utilized in this Petition is 14-point Times New Roman

cing investors he had negotiated multi-million settlements in high-profile cases. Three of Edwards' clients at the time alleged tort claims against Epstein, which Epstein ultimately settled. Based on publicly available information about 3 All background information is derived from the complaints and Jo

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

parate trial should not be ordered unless such disposition is dearly necessary, and then only in the furtherance of justice." Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For example, "It is improper to sever a

. Link & Rockenbach, PA A ellate Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00793730 INTRODUCTION In this Emergency Petition for a writ of mandamus, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein'

Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply With the Mandate Set Forth in Rule 1.440. Epstein requests Emergency treatment because

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

arate trial should not be ordered unless such disposition is clearly necessary, and then only in the furtherance of justice." Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For example, "It is improper to sever a

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO EME

Civil Procedure, and unequivocal legal precedent interpreting the same clearly against him, Edwards levels false and misleading accusations against Epstein and injects impertinent allegations into his argument in an obvious attempt to divert the Court from its inevitable decision. Throughout his Respon

18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

rate trials should not be ordered unless such disposition is clearly necessary, and then only in the furtherance of justice." Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Inconsistent verdicts present an additi